Hansraj Swami vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4437 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hansraj Swami vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:1963]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 360/2025

1. Hansraj Swami S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Swami, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Amli Ki Dhani, Kanpura Loj, Tehsil Naraynpur, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

2. Sunil Kanwar Swami S/o Shri Puran Mal Swami, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Amli Ki Dhani, Kanpura Loj, Tehsil Naraynpur, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan.

3. Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Bali Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Post Bandhara, Tehsil Tijara, District Khirtal-Tijara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, School Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Joint Secretary (Admn.), Department Of Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).

4. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Alwar , (Raj.).

5. The District Education Officer, Headquarters, Elementary Education, Kotputli Behror, (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order

13/01/2025

1. Grievance of the petitioners herein, arises out of the

inaction/non-consideration on the part of the respondents to

consider their claim of re-fixation of their monthly pay at the rate

of Rs.16,900/-.

2. They relied upon on a judgment rendered by this Court in

the case of Jassa Ram Choudhary and Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

[2025:RJ-JD:1963] (2 of 2) [CW-360/2025]

17901/2023) decided on 09.11.2023 pursuant whereto, similarly

situated counterparts have been accorded benefit. They claim that

despite their passing the requisite qualification, they are not being

considered eligible for appointment as Vidhalaya Sahayak in the

higher pay bracket as aforesaid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that

qua the aforesaid grievance, the petitioners also submitted

representation(s) before the competent authority for redressal

thereof, which has remained pending till date without being taken

up for passing any orders either way, therefore, the competent

authority be directed to decided the same by passing appropriate

administrative orders expeditiously.

4. Request seems to be fair.

5. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no

prejudice would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the

requirement of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is

required to be filed by them.

6. In view of the aforesaid premise, the writ petition is disposed

of. The respondent competent authority is directed to decide the

pending representation(s) of the petitioners by passing an

appropriate administrative order, in accordance with law.

7. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.

8. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 15-raksha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)